By Bob Gribbin
This is the fifth and final article in the Hawkesbury Gazette investigation into the proposed Special Rate Variation sought by Hawkesbury City Council.
Previous articles examined the council's financial need, the community consultation process, the impact on ratepayers, and whether the required financial planning documents were properly exhibited.
The final criterion evaluated by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) and the NSW Office of Local Government relates to whether councils have taken adequate steps to improve productivity and control costs before requesting additional revenue from ratepayers.
This requirement aims to ensure councils demonstrate responsible financial management and seek internal efficiencies before raising rates.
The Productivity Question
Hawkesbury City Council's Special Rate Variation application lists several initiatives that demonstrate productivity improvements and cost containment. These include:
- Transferring the Lower Portland Ferry to Transport for NSW
- Renegotiating agreements for regional animal shelter services
- Reducing how often some community events occur
Together, these measures are projected to deliver approximately $1.6 million in ongoing annual savings.
However, critics argue that some of these measures are more about shifting responsibility or cutting services than truly improving efficiency. For example, transferring the Lower Portland Ferry to the state government shifts the cost to another level of government rather than lowering the service's actual cost. Similarly, shifting events to a biennial schedule cuts costs but also decreases the services provided to residents.
A Small Savings Goal
The council has also suggested conducting a thorough spending review to identify additional savings. However, the current target for that review is approximately $1 million per year — about 0.8% of the council's operating costs.
For context, the council's total operating expenditure is budgeted at about $121 million. Critics argue that this savings target is modest compared to the efficiency targets often set by both government and private-sector organisations. Many organisations consistently aim for productivity gains of 2% to 5% annually. If Hawkesbury achieved just a 2% increase in efficiency, it could save around $2.4 million each year, possibly leading to a smaller rate rise.
Inconsistencies in the Savings Data
Another issue highlighted in the analysis relates to the savings target communicated to the public during consultation. During community engagement, council materials proposed a 2% operational savings target for the spending review. However, the formal application submitted to IPART refers to a target of $1 million — approximately 0.8% of expenditure. Critics argue this difference raises questions about the extent of cost containment the council is actually aiming for.
Development Assessment Processing Times
The council has also highlighted faster development application (DA) processing times as evidence of increased efficiency. According to figures cited in the SRV application, average assessment times reportedly decreased significantly over a short period, with the council claiming to have moved from 76th to first place in NSW for processing times.
Such a substantial improvement in approximately 18 months would mark a major operational turnaround. However, some analysts argue that the improvement needs independent verification to ensure the change genuinely reflects efficiency gains rather than differences in measurement methods. In some planning systems, the clock used to measure assessment times can be paused when councils request additional information from applicants, potentially affecting reported performance figures.
Project Delivery Capacity
Questions about productivity also relate to the council's capacity to deliver major infrastructure projects. In recent years, the council's capital works program has grown substantially, supported by significant injections of state and federal grant funding.
However, several major projects funded through the Western Sydney Infrastructure Grants Program, formerly WestInvest, have experienced delays, scope reductions, or funding shortfalls. Examples include projects proposed for Tamplin Field, Turnbull Oval, Richmond Pool, and the North Richmond Community Centre. Critics argue that these issues raise broader questions about the council's capacity for project planning and cost estimation.
Supporters of the council highlight that many infrastructure projects across Australia have experienced increasing construction costs and supply chain issues in recent years.
The Broader Governance Debate
The question of productivity and cost containment is part of a larger debate about council governance and financial management.
Some public submissions argue that a pattern of project delays, grant management issues, and infrastructure planning challenges indicates deeper systemic problems. Others argue that the Hawkesbury encounters unique challenges — including its vast geographic area, a scattered rural community, and repeated natural disasters impacting infrastructure. These structural factors increase the cost of delivering services compared to many metropolitan councils.
What Happens Next
Ultimately, IPART must decide whether Hawkesbury City Council has taken sufficient steps to improve efficiency and control costs before seeking additional revenue from ratepayers. That decision will determine whether the proposed 39.4% rate increase goes ahead.
However, as Minister for Local Government Ron Hoenig has noted, the wider issue of council performance ultimately depends on the community itself. Unless illegal activity is identified, the Minister has indicated that decisions about the functioning of local councils are mostly a matter for residents at election time.
Why This Series Matters
Through this five-part series, the Hawkesbury Gazette has analysed the proposed rate increase against each of the criteria used by regulators: financial hardship, community engagement, impact on ratepayers, planning and reporting obligations, and productivity and cost control.
The goal has not been to argue for or against the proposal, but to give residents the information they need to understand the complex financial and governance issues currently facing the Hawkesbury community.
Because, ultimately, local government accountability starts with an informed public.
